Liberals Find Reach Arounds On 2nd Amendment
Candidate Obama had said not to worry, he wasn’t going to take our guns, those same guns that so many of us were bitterly clinging to. However, stipulations were made that there were ways to go around gun bans through ammo, reloading, banning other weapons, etc., and that’s exactly what’s happening.
It’s called the Inter-American Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials. To be sure, this imponderable title masks a really nasty piece of work.
First of all, when the treaty purports to ban the “illicit” manufacture of firearms, what does that mean?
1. “Illicit manufacturing” of firearms is defined as “assembly of firearms [or] ammunition … without a license….”
Hence, reloading ammunition — or putting together a lawful firearm from a kit — is clearly “illicit manufacturing.”
Modifying a firearm in any way would surely be “illicit manufacturing.” And, while it would be a stretch, assembling a firearm after cleaning it could, in any plain reading of the words, come within the screwy definition of “illicit manufacturing.”
2. “Firearm” has a similarly questionable definition.
“[A]ny other weapon” is a “firearm,” according to the treaty — and the term “weapon” is nowhere defined.
So, is a BB gun a “firearm”? Probably.
A toy gun? Possibly.
A pistol grip or firing pin? Probably. And who knows what else.
If these provisions (and others) become the law of the land, the Obama administration could have a heyday in enforcing them. Consider some of the other provisions in the treaty:
* Banning reloading. In Article IV of the treaty, countries commit to adopting “necessary legislative or other measures” to criminalize illicit manufacturing and trafficking in firearms.
Remember that “illicit manufacturing” includes reloading and modifying or assembling a firearm in any way. This would mean that the Obama administration could promulgate regulations banning reloading on the basis of this treaty — just as it is currently circumventing Congress to write legislation taxing greenhouse gases.
* Banning gun clubs. Article IV goes on to state that the criminalized acts should include “association or conspiracy” in connection with said offenses — which is arguably a term broad enough to allow, by regulation, the criminalization of entire pro-gun organizations or gun clubs, based on the facilities which they provide their membership.
* Extraditing US gun dealers. Article V requires each party to “adopt such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offenses it has established in accordance with this Convention” under a variety of circumstances.
* Microstamping. Article VI requires “appropriate markings” on firearms. And, it is not inconceivable that this provision could be used to require microstamping of firearms and/or ammunition — a requirement which is clearly intended to impose specifications which are not technologically possible or which are possible only at a prohibitively expensive cost.
* Gun registration. Article XI requires the maintenance of any records, for a “reasonable time,” that the government determines to be necessary to trace firearms. This provision would almost certainly repeal portions of McClure-Volkmer and could arguably be used to require a national registry or database.
I hope that if this gets passed, a ban on reloading would be considered for everything, including Biden’s mouth, of which, he shoots off constantly.
The consideration of the reloading ban via the Inter-American Treaty is not the only “reach around,” the federal government is also considering the ban of certain pocket knives.
The U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency is proposing a new definition that could be used to eliminate 8 of 10 legal pocketknives in the United States right now, according to activists who are gearing up to fight the plan.
The federal bureaucracy is accepting comments – written only – that must be received by June 21 before its planned changes could become final, but Doug Ritter of KnifeRights.org, said the implications of the decision would be far-reaching, since many state and federal agencies depend on the agency’s definitions to determine what is legal in the United States.
For a long time, those switchblades that have long stiletto blades that are spring-ejected powerfully from the side or end of the handle have been illegal in the United States, but now a review by the agency of its own approval in 2008 of a particular type of knife for import is raising serious alarms.
Next the government will ban baseball bats and archery as a sport!
And let’s be clear here, the 2nd amendment says “the right to bear ARMS,” not the right to bear guns…
Sonia, Sonia, Sonia… You Have Lotsa Splainin’ To Do
Sonia Sotomayor has another interesting court case that involved a teen blogger, a reputation as a bully among her peers, declaring the 2nd amendment is not a constitutional right, and after posting yesterday about La Raza, (in which I made no mention of a connection), we find out that she is in fact a member. La Raza in Spanish means The Race. The very essence of the group is racist.
The teen blogger case is very disturbing, mainly because it was a high school student who was denied the opportunity to run as class president because of a statement she made on the Internet about her teachers and the school administration calling them D* bags. What child doesn’t say nasty things from time to time when they get emotional or upset? Sotomayor’s ruling stated that the female student, who used the term after the school’s battle of the bands was canceled by faculty, would cause a possible disruption, and therefore was unable to run – hello?? Basic 1st amendment? It’s not like she yelled fire in a crowded movie theatre – we are talking about an angry Internet post of a term that is commonly used nowadays when people are upset. Being from Connecticut myself, I’m surprised I didn’t already know about this woman, granted she did not preside over my jurisdiction/county.
Sonia Sotomayor’s peers and co-workers have also made statements after her nomination claiming that she is a bully and quite abrasive in the work environment. Compared to other court justices on both sides of the aisle, most are very well respected and amiable. It’s important in any working environment to feel comfortable and not harassed – it would be very upsetting to learn that she tried to pressure or bully other SCOTUS members in the future, to make a decision to her liking.
Sonia has also ruled that the 2nd amendment was not a constitutional right in the past. I’m not sure why it would be an amendment in the constitution, and the 2nd one at that, if it wasn’t constitutional, but what do I know? It’s also my understanding that our constitution was established based on Jefferson’s Federalist Papers? Federalism did reign supreme in those days and that meant more state power…?
Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayorruled in January 2009 that states do not have to obey the Second Amendment’s commandment that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
In Maloney v. Cuomo, Sotomayor signed an opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that said the Second Amendment does not protect individuals from having their right to keep and bear arms restricted by state governments.
The opinion said that the Second Amendment only restricted the federal government from infringing on an individual’s right to keep and bear arms. As justification for this position, the opinion cited the 1886 Supreme Court case of Presser v. Illinois.
“It is settled law, however, that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right,” said the opinion. Quoting Presser, the court said, “it is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state.”
The final and most extreme issue coming to the forefront is her association with the radically liberal La Raza. I posted yesterday on other details about the SCOTUS nomination and in so doing, also mentioned the organization and provided a link with facts.
There are many immigrant groups joined in the overall “La Raza” movement. The most prominent and mainstream organization is the National Council de La Raza — the Council of “The Race”.
To most of the mainstream media, most members of Congress, and even many of their own members, the National Council of La Raza is no more than a Hispanic Rotary Club.
But the National Council of La Raza succeeded in raking in over $15.2 million in federal grants last year alone, of which $7.9 million was in U.S. Department of Education grants for Charter Schools, and undisclosed amounts were for get-out-the-vote efforts supporting La Raza political positions.
The Council of La Raza succeeded in having itself added to congressional hearings by Republican House and Senate leaders. And an anonymous senator even gave the Council of La Raza an extra $4 million in earmarked taxpayer money, supposedly for “housing reform,” while La Raza continues to lobby the Senate for virtual open borders and amnesty for illegal aliens.
La Raza lies the real agenda of the La Raza movement, the agenda that led to those thousands of illegal immigrants in the streets of American cities, waving Mexican flags, brazenly defying our laws, and demanding concessions.
Key among the secondary organizations is the radical racist group Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan, or Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan (MEChA), one of the most anti-American groups in the country, which has permeated U.S. campuses since the 1960s, and continues its push to carve a racist nation out of the American West.
Eeeegads we better watch it here!
House Passes Credit Card Bill & Gun Initiative
The House overwhelmingly approved legislation Wednesday imposing new restrictions on credit-card companies, sending the measure to President Barack Obama to sign in the coming days.
The 364-61 approval, following the Senate’s 90-5 vote Tuesday, will ban several of the industry’s most profitable practices and require clearer disclosure to cardholders about the interest they are paying.
Mr. Obama has pledged to sign the measure, which would take effect in late February 2010. One of the toughest provisions: Cardholders won’t see interest-rate increases on existing card balances unless they are 60 days late on payments. And if the customer pays on time for six months after that, the prior rate must be reinstated.
The new rules also would ban some fees, provide more notice for customers to pay bills and require clearer disclosures. For instance, credit-card statements will have to tell customers how long they would need to wipe out their balance if only paying the minimum each month, and how much interest they would incur along the way.
The legislation will force broad changes in the credit-card business, many of which were under way after the Federal Reserve approved similar — though less stringent — regulations in December. Industry officials say the most stringent elements of the legislation will constrain their ability to adjust prices for the riskiest consumers. Card companies have said they are considering shorter introductory rates, higher interest rates and more annual fees for some consumers as a result of the new restrictions.
There was another provision/amendment tacked onto the credit card bill for gun rights and the ability to carry guns inside national parks. 105 Dems in the house and several in the senate voted for this amendment. YAY NRA! Tom Coburn put this into the legislation – taking a page right out of the liberal playbook to tack it onto another bill that would most likely get passed.
What the critics have to say about possible issues from the credit card bill:
– Credit will tighten
– This will cause unemployment in the credit industry
– This is more unprecedented government control
– People who pay late are rewarded while those who are responsible have to pick up the bill and get punished
– May actually be more detrimental to the economy in the long-run than people realize
Sarah Palin Honored by NRA
Ain’t she “purdy?”
From the NY Daily News:
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin was bashed for her pricey wardrobe, but now she’s getting a lethal accessory.
The National Rifle Association Foundation will present Sen. John McCain’s ill-fated running mate with a military-style assault weapon next week.
The all-white “Alaskan Hunter” – fashionable until Labor Day – is the civilian version of a modified M-4 rifle carried by U.S. troops overseas.
Alaska’s feisty Republican governor, who is weighing a potential 2012 presidential bid, will receive the rifle made by Templar Consulting at a May 14 NRA banquet.
It’s engraved with Palin’s name and adorned with a map of the state on the collapsible stock – made legal after the expiration of the assault weapons ban in 2004. The Big Dipper from the state flag is etched on the magazine well behind a vented barrel guard.
The rifle is chambered in .50-caliber “Beowulf.” It’s the same caliber used by heavy machine guns, which can take down big game, and in war zones “can disable both motor vehicles and assailants with body armor,” according to ammo manufacturer Alexander Arms’ Web site.
Templar gun designer Bob Reynolds told the NRA’s magazine that Palin had stood up for Second Amendment gun rights and “I just wanted to do something to give back.”
National Support for Gun Protection Grows While Support for Abortion Slips
A Study by the Pew Research Center (which is typically liberal so this is great news!)
Overview
Public attitudes on a pair of contentious national issues – gun control and abortion – have moved in a more conservative direction over the past year. In both cases, the changes have been driven in part by relatively large shifts among men, while opinions among women have not changed very much.
For the first time in a Pew Research survey, nearly as many people believe it is more important to protect the right of Americans to own guns (45%) than to control gun ownership (49%). As recently as a year ago, 58% said it was more important to control gun ownership while 37% said it was more important to protect the right to own guns.
The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted March 31-April 21 among 1,521 adults reached on landlines and cell phones, also finds public opinion about abortion more closely divided than it has been in several years. Currently, 46% say abortion should be legal in most cases (28%) or all cases (18%); 44% believe that abortion should be illegal in most (28%) or all cases (16%). Since the mid-1990s, majorities have consistently favored legal abortion, with the exception of an August 2001 survey by ABC News/Washington Post. Read more
